Arguments Between Henry George and Andrew Carnegie

1429 Words6 Pages
Is aggregation of wealth good for progress? Our earth has two poles, the South Pole and the North Pole. Our society also has two poles, the “poor pole” and the “rich pole”. Can you image that when the rich eat delicious steak in the most expensive and luxury restaurant, the poor cannot even afford a bowl of porridge! At that time, what is the dish of rich people? Steak? Or the blood and tears of the poor! When the united states industrialize after the civil war, a great deal of inequality of wealth was created. Debate raged on whether this inequality was good for progress. I agree with Henry George’s opinion which claims that aggregation of wealth is not good for progress. This essay will contract the view of Henry George with Andrew Carnegie on whether concentration of wealth is good for progress or not and it will also analyze the reason for me to support Henry George. Henry George was born into a poor family, and he only went to seven grades of school. As a young man, he worked in factories and become very critical about the distribution of wealth in America. In 1883 he published his book Social Problems, in which he outlined his main idea. First, he thinks wealthy people made a lot of money, not by industry, but by forming lobby pools and monopolies. After political revolution and Cultural Revolution, the industrial revolution happened in America. Industrial revolution transformers society by creating large cities with industrial workers. The power shifted to the new elite. The way the new elite are making more money than they deserve is that they form monopolies. “Small storekeepers and merchants are becoming the clerks and salesmen of great business houses” (page15) and the big corporation form monopolies. We call the wealthy industrialists “robber barons” because they made a lot of money through “exploitation of the working class.” For example,
Open Document